Importance of Sources using the Repeated Fusion Method and the Proportional Conflict Redistribution Rules #5 and #6

(1)

HAL Id: hal-00471839

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00471839

Submitted on 9 Apr 2010

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Importance of Sources using the Repeated Fusion Method and the Proportional Conflict Redistribution

Rules #5 and #6

Florentin Smarandache, Jean Dezert

To cite this version:

Florentin Smarandache, Jean Dezert. Importance of Sources using the Repeated Fusion Method and the Proportional Conflict Redistribution Rules #5 and #6. 2010. �hal-00471839�

(2)

Importance of Sources using the Repeated Fusion Method and the Proportional Conflict Redistribution Rules #5 and #6

Florentin Smarandache Math & Sciences Department

University of New Mexico, Gallup Campus, USA Jean Dezert

French Aerospace Research Lab.

ONERA/DTIM/SIF 29 Avenue de la Division Leclerc

92320 Châtillon, France Abstract.

We present in this paper some examples of how to compute by hand the PCR5 fusion rule for three sources, so the reader will better understand its mechanism.

We also take into consideration the importance of sources, which is different from the classical discounting of sources.

1. Introduction.

Discounting of Sources.

Discounting a source m

1

(.) with the coefficient 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 and a source m

2

(.) with a coefficient 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 (because we are not very confident in them), means to adjust them to m

1

’(.) and m

2

’(.) such that:

m

1

’(A) = α ⋅ m

1

(A) for A ≠

Θ

(total ignorance), and m

1

’(

Θ

) = α ⋅ m

1

(

Θ

)+ 1-α, and m

2

’(A) = β ⋅ m

2

(A) for A ≠

Θ

(total ignorance), and m

2

’(

Θ

) = β ⋅ m

2

(

Θ

)+ 1- β.

Importance of Sources using Repeated Fusion.

But if a source is more important than another one (since a such source comes from a more important person with a decision power, let’s say an executive director), for example if source m2(.) is twice more important than source m

1

(.), then we can combine m

1

(.) with m

2

(.) and with m

2

(.), so we repeated m

2

(.) twice. Doing this procedure, the source which is repeated (combined) more times than another source attracts the result towards its masses – see an example below.

Jean Dezert has criticized this method since if a source is repeated say 4 times and other source is repeated 6 times, then combining 4 times m

1

(.) with 6 times m

2

(.) will give a result different from combining 2 times m

1

(.) with 3 times m

2

(.), although 4/6 = 2/3. In order to avoid this, we take the simplified fraction n/p, where gcd(n, p) =1, where gcd is the greatest common divisor of the natural numbers n and p.

This method is still controversial since after a large number of combining n times m

1

(.) with p

times m

2

(.) for n+p sufficiently large, the result is not much different from a previous one which

combines n

1

times m

1

(.) with p

1

times m

2

(.) for n

1

+p

1

sufficiently large but a little less than n+p,

so the method is not well responding for large numbers.

(3)

A more efficacy method of importance of sources consists in taking into consideration the discounting on the empty set and then the normalization (see especially paper [1] and also[2]).

2. Using m

_PCR₅

for 3 Sources.

Example calculated by hand for combining three sources using PCR5 fusion rule.

Let’s say that m

2

( ) . is 2 times more important than m

1

( ) . ; therefore we fusion m

1

(.), m

2

(.), m

2

(.).

1 2 2 122

A B A B A B=

0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5

0.193 0.274 0.050 0.483 m

m m m

Φ

∪ ∩

1 1 2

0.005 0.05

0.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 7

0.000714 0.000714

0.003572

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ =

⎢⎣

∪

2 2 2

0.14 0.07 0.7

0.4 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.8 8

0.035000 0.061250

0.043750

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ =

⎢⎣

∪

3 3 3

0.008 0.08

0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 7

0.004571 0.001143

0.002286

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ≅

⎢⎣

∪

4 4 4

(0.4)(0.1)(0.2) 0.008 0.08

0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 7

0.004571 0.001143

0.002286

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ≅

⎢⎣

∪

(4)

5 5 5

0.14 1.4

0.4 0.7 0.5 1.6 16

0.035000 0.061250

0.043750

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ≅

⎢⎣

∪

6 6 6

0.005 0.05

0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 7

0.000714 0.000714

0.003572

A B A B

x y z x y z

⎡ = = = =

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ≅

⎢⎣

∪

7 7

6 6

(0.1)(0.1)(0.1) 0.001 0.1 (0.1)(0.1) 0.1 0.01 0.11

0.000909 0.000091

A B

x y

⎡ = = =

⎢ +

⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢⎣

8 8

(0.4)(0.7)(0.1) 0.028 2.8 0.4 (0.7)(0.1) 0.1 0.01 0.47 47

0.023830 0.004170

A B

x y

⎡ = = = =

⎢ +

⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢⎣

9 8

0.023830 0.004170

A A

B B

x x

y y

= ≅

10 10

10 8

(0.1)(0.4)(0.1) 0.004 0.4 0.2

(0.1)(0.4) 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.14 14 7

0.001143 0.002857

A B

x y

⎡ = = = = =

⎢ +

⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢ ≅

⎢ ⎢⎣

11 10

0.001143 0.002857

A A

B B

x x

y y

= ≅

(5)

12 12

(0.4)(0.4)(0.7) 0.112 11.2 (0.1)(0.4) 0.1 0.16 0.7 0.86 86

0.020837 0.091163

A B

x y

⎡ = = = =

⎢ +

⎢ ≅

⎢⎢ ≅

⎢⎢⎣

5 122

A B A B 0.345262 0.505522 0.149216 m

PCR

∪

If we didn’t double m

2

(.) in the fusion rule, we’d get a different result.

Let’s suppose we only fusion m

1

(.) with m

2

(.):

1 2 12

A B A B A B=

0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5

0.17 0.44 m

m m

Φ

∪ ∩

5 12

0.10 0.29 0.322 0.668 0.100 0 m

PCR

And now we compare the fusion results:

5 122

5 12

A B A B

0.345 0.506 0.149 - (sec )

0.322 0.668 0.100 -

PCR PCR

m three sources ond source doubled ; importance of sources considered;

m two sources; importance of

− −

∪

sources not considered .

The more times we repeat m

2

(.) the closer m

_12...2^PCR⁵

(A) Æ m

2

(A)=0.4, m

_12...2^PCR⁵

(B) Æ m

2

(B)=0.1, and

5 12...2

m

PCR

(A

∪B

) Æ m

2

(A

∪B

)=0.5. Therefore, doubling, tripling, etc. a source, the mass of each element in the frame of discernment tends towards the mass value of that element in the repeated source (since that source is considered to have more importance than the others).

For the readers who want to do the previous calculation with a computer, here it is the m

_PCR₅

Formula for 3 Sources:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2

1 2 3

5 123

, 1 2 3

PCR

( )

X Y G A X Y A A X Y

m A m X m Y

m A m

m A m X m Y

∈ Θ

≠ ≠ ≠

=Φ

⎛ ⎜

= + +

⎜ + +

∑ ⎝

∩ ∩

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3

m Y m A m X m X m Y m A

⎞ ⎟

+ + +

+ + + + ⎟ ⎠

(6)

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

X G A X

m A m X m X m X m A m X m X m X m A m A m X m X m X m A m X m X m X m A

∈ Θ

=Φ

⎛ ⎞

⎜ ⎟

+ + + +

⎜ + + + + + + ⎟

⎝ ⎠

∑

∩

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

X GA X

m A m A m X m X m A m A m A m X m A m A m A m X m X m A m A m A m X m A

∈ Θ

=Φ

⎛ ⎞

⎜ ⎟

+ + +

⎜ + + + + + + ⎟

⎝ ⎠

∑

∩

3. Similarly, let’s see the m

^PCR⁶

Formula for 3 Sources:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2

1 2 3

6 123

, 1 2 3

PCR

( )

X Y G A X Y A A X Y

m A m X m Y

m A m

m A m X m Y

∈ Θ

≠ ≠ ≠

=Φ

⎛ ⎜

= + +

⎜ + +

∑ ⎝

∩ ∩

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3

m Y m A m X m X m Y m A

⎞ ⎟

+ + +

+ + + + ⎟ ⎠

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

X GA X

m A m X m X m X m A m X m X m X m A m A m X m X m X m A m X m X m X m A

∈ Θ

=Φ

⎛ ⎞

⎜ ⎟

+

∑

⎜⎝ + + + + + + + + ⎟⎠+

∩

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3

X G A X

m A m A m X m A m A m X m A m A m X

∈ Θ

=Φ

⎛ +

⎜

+ +

⎜ + +

∑

⎝

∩

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3

m X m A m A m X m A m A

m X m A m A

+ + +

+ +

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2 2

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3

m A m X m A m A m X m A

m A m X m A

+ ⎞

⎟

+ + + ⎟ ⎠

4. A General Formula for

^PCR⁶

for

^s^≥²

Sources.

{ }

1 2

1 2 1 1 2 1

1

6 12...

1 ( , ,..., ) (1,2,..., ) , ,...,

, 1,2,..., 1

( ) ( ) ( ) ... ( )

k s s

si

i i

s

PCR s i i i

k i i i P s

X X X G

X A i s

X A

m A m m A m A m A

− Θ

−

=

−

= ∈

≠ ∈ ∈−

⎛ ⎞

⎜ ⎟ =Φ

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

⎤

= +

∑ ∑ ∑

⎡⎣ + + + ⎦⋅

∩ ∩

1 2 1

1 1

( ) ( )... ( ) ( )... ( )

( ) ( ) ... ( ) ( ) ... ( )

k k s

i i i i i s k

m A m A m A m X m X

+

−

⋅ + + + + + +

where P(1, 2, …, s) is the set of all permutations of the elements {1, 2, …, s}.

(7)

It should be observed that X

1

, X

2

, …, X

s-1

may be different from each other, or some of them equal and others different, etc.

We wrote this PCR6 general formula in the style of PCR5, different from Arnaud Martin &

Christophe Oswald’s notations, but actually doing the same thing. In order not to complicate the formula of PCR6, we did not use more summations or products after the third Sigma.

As a particular case:

1 1 1 3

1 2 3

1 2 1 1 3

1 2

1 1

2 1 2

6 123

1 ( , , ) (1,2,3)

, 1 2

,

( ) ... ( ) ( )... ( ) ( )... ( )

( ) ( ) ... ( ) ( ) ... ( )

k k k

k k

i i i i i i

PCR

k i i i P

X X G i i i i

X A X A X X A

m A m A m A m A m X m X

m A m

m A m A m X m X

+

Θ = ∈ +

≠ ∈ ≠

=Φ

⎡ + + ⎤

⎣ ⎦

= +

+ + + + +

∑ ∑ ∑

∩ ∩

where

P(1, 2, 3)

is the set of permutations of the elements { ^{1, 2, 3 .} }

It should also be observed that X

₁

may be different from or equal to X

₂.

Conclusion.

The aim of this paper was to show how to manually compute PCR5 for 3 sources on some examples, thus better understanding its essence. And also how to take into consideration the importance of sources doing the Repeated Fusion Method. We did not present the Method of Discounting to the Empty Set in order to emphasize the importance of sources, which is better than the first one, since the second method was the main topic of paper [2].

We also presented the PCR5 formula for 3 sources (a particular case when n=3), and the general formula for PCR6 in a different way but yet equivalent to Martin-Oswald’s PCR6 formula.

References:

1. Dezert J., Tacnet J.-M., Batton-Hubert M., Smarandache F., Multi-criteria Decision Making Based on DSmT-AHP, in Proceedings of Workshop on the Theory of Belief Functions, April 1-2, 2010, Brest, France (available at http://www.ensieta.fr/belief2010/).

2. Smarandache F., Dezert J., Tacnet J.-M., Fusion of Sources of Evidence with Different Importances and Reliabilities, submitted to Fusion 2010, International Conference, Edinburgh, U.K., July 2010.

3. Smarandache Florentin, Dezert Jean, Li Xinde, DSm Field and Linear Algebra of Refined Labels (FLARL), in the book “Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion”, Am. Res. Press, Rehoboth, USA, Chapter 2 (pages 75-84), 2009; online at:

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//DSmT-book3.pdf .

4. Smarandache F., Dezert J., Advances and Applications of DSmT for Information Fusion, Vols. 1-3, Am. Res. Press, Rehoboth, 2004, 2006, 2009;

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//DSmT.htm .